Gangs, Juvenile delinquency prevention

Text-only Preview

U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention December 2001Hybrid and Other Modern GangsA Message From OJJDPGangs have changed significantlyfrom the images portrayed in WestSide Story and similar stereotypicalDavid Starbuck, James C. Howell, depictions. Although newly emergingand Donna J. Lindquistyouth gangs frequently take on thenames of older traditional gangs, theThe proliferation of youth gangs since 1980same methods of operation as traditionalsimilarities often end there.has fueled the public’s fear and magnifiedgangs such as the Bloods and Crips (basedThis Bulletin describes the nature ofpossible misconceptions about youth gangs.in Los Angeles, CA) or the Black Gangstermodern youth gangs, in particular,To address the mounting concern aboutDisciples and Vice Lords (based in Chicago,hybrid gangs. Hybrid gang culture isyouth gangs, the Office of Juvenile JusticeIL). These older gangs tend to have an age-characterized by mixed racial andand Delinquency Prevention’s (OJJDP’s)graded structure of subgroups or cliques.ethnic participation within a singleYouth Gang Series delves into many of theThe two Chicago gangs have produced or-gang, participation in multiple gangskey issues related to youth gangs. The ganizational charts and explicit rules ofby a single individual, vague rules andseries considers issues such as gang migra-conduct and regulations, including detailedcodes of conduct for gang members,tion, gang growth, female involvement withpunishments for breaking gang rules (Sper-use of symbols and colors fromgangs, homicide, drugs and violence, andgel, 1995:81). They have developed coali-multiple—even rival—gangs, collabo-the needs of communities and youth whotions with other gangs, forming what areration by rival gangs in criminal activi-live in the presence of youth gangs.called gang “nations,” such as Folks (in-ties, and the merger of smaller gangscluding the Black Gangster Disciples) andinto larger ones. Thus, hybrid gang“Hybrid” youth gangs1 have existed in thePeople (including the Vice Lords).customs are clearly distinguished fromUnited States at least since the 1920sthe practices of their predecessors.(Thrasher, 1927). Early hybrid gangs wereAlthough many communities have gangsdescribed mainly as mixed-race or mixed-that bear the names of earlier gangs thatThe Bulletin draws on survey data,research findings, and field reportsethnicity gangs; modern-day hybrid gangs,originated in Los Angeles and Chicago, theto detail these critical differences,however, have more diverse characteris-actual membership of these newer gangsreviewing such issues as gangtics. “Hybrid gang culture” is character-is often locally based and has little or nostereotypes and gang migration inized by members of different racial/ethnicreal national affiliation. These hybrids—the process.groups participating in a single gang, indi-new gangs that may have the names butviduals participating in multiple gangs, un-not the other characteristics of olderIf law enforcement agencies are toclear rules or codes of conduct, symbolicgangs—are one of the new types of gangseffectively address the problemsassociations with more than one well-most frequently found in communitiesposed by newly emerging youthestablished gang (e.g., use of colors andthat had no gang culture prior to thegangs, they must understand thegraffiti from different gangs), cooperation1980s or 1990s. Because gangs, gang cul-differences that distinguish them fromof rival gangs in criminal activity, and fre-ture, and gang-related activities are dynam-the stereotypical concept of traditionalquent mergers of small gangs.ic, affected communities need to recognizegangs. The information provided inthe new faces of these groups and avoidthis Bulletin should contribute to thatAs the new millennium begins, hybridawareness.popularly held, media-influenced miscon-gangs are flourishing and their changingceptions (see Best and Hutchinson, 1996;nature is making it more difficult to studyDecker, Bynum, and Weisel, 1998; Fernan-and respond to them. Today, many gangsdez, 1998; Fleisher, 1995, 1998; Klein, 1995;do not follow the same rules or use theMiethe and McCorkle, 1997; McCorkle andMiethe, 1998).The public continues to perceive youthgangs and gang members in terms of themedia stereotype of the California Cripsand Bloods rather than in terms of currentscientific data (Klein, 1995:40–43, 112–135).Some jurisdictions may erroneously adapta response that is appropriate for well-publicized Los Angeles or Chicago gangproblems but not for gang issues in theirown jurisdictions (Miethe and McCorkle,1997). For example, misreading local gangsas drug trafficking enterprises rather thanneighborhood conflict groups could ren-der interventions ineffective. Because thecharacteristics of local gangs and theircriminal involvement may differ from thefeatures of gangs in distant cities, differentstrategies may be required to address thelocal gang problem effectively.This Bulletin addresses youth gangs in the21st century by considering what consti-counties (Egley, 2000; Howell, Moore, andWinfree, 1999; Fleisher, 1998; Miller, J.A.,tutes a hybrid gang, whether gangs andEgley, forthcoming). The average year of2001). For example, 92 percent of gangindividual members are migrating acrossgang problem onset was 1989 for largeyouth in one student survey (Esbensen,the country, and how new coalitions suchcities, 1990 for suburban counties, 1992Deschenes, and Winfree, 1999:42) saidas hybrid gangs differ from stereotypicalfor small cities, and 1993 for rural coun-both boys and girls belonged to their gang.and traditional gangs. The Bulletin bringsties (National Youth Gang Center, 1999).together survey data, recent research re-Gangs in suburban areas, small towns, andThe localities reporting later onset of gangsults, and firsthand reports from the fieldrural areas show more membership diver-problems are most likely to be in ruralto examine today’s gangs and their mem-sity than gangs in large cities. Gangs incounties, small cities, and suburban coun-bers. For reports from the field, the Bul-these areas have more racially/ethnicallyties with populations of less than 50,000letin draws heavily on insights shared bymixed membership (National Youth Gang(Howell, Egley, and Gleason, forthcoming).author David Starbuck, formerly a SergeantCenter, 2000:22–23) and include more fe-in the Kansas City Police Department’sGangs are also becoming commonplace inmales, Caucasians, and younger membersGang Unit, whose contributions are incor-institutions, including schools, that hadthan gangs in larger cities (Curry, 2000;porated throughout the Bulletin, especiallybeen considered safe havens. For manyHowell, Egley, and Gleason, forthcoming).in the sidebars that give the law enforce-students, school has become a gatheringment practitioner’s point of view.place for gangs. More than one-third (37Organizationpercent) of a nationally representativeThe broad range of modern or contempo-Although a fixed definition has not beensample of students reported gang presencerary gangs, as depicted in research studiesestablished, youth gangs are often pre-in their schools in 1995, a 100-percent in-and survey data, is discussed in the firstsumed to be highly organized groups thatcrease over 1989 (Howell and Lynch, 2000).section of this Bulletin. The growth of mod-engage in some level of criminal activity.Gang presence is being reported even inern gangs provides a social context for theSeveral studies challenge the notion thatthe military (Hasenauer, 1996).emergence of hybrid gangs. Hybrid gangsyouth gangs are highly organized. Deckerare discussed in the second section, andand colleagues (1998) compared the twoMember Diversityconclusions and policy implications aremost highly organized gangs (as reportedhighlighted in the final section.Although many gangs continue to be basedby police) in Chicago, IL, and San Diego,on race or ethnicity, gangs are increasinglyCA. They found that the Chicago gangsdiverse in racial/ethnic composition. Lawwere far more organized than the SanCharacteristics of enforcement agencies responding to theDiego gangs but levels of organizationModern Youth Gangs1998 National Youth Gang Survey estimat-were not necessarily linked to increaseded that more than one-third (36 percent)involvement in crime (Decker, Bynum, andLocationof youth gangs had a significant mixture ofWeisel, 1998:408). Their observation thattwo or more racial/ethnic groups (Nation-Once a problem primarily in large cities,the San Diego gangs were disorganized mir-al Youth Gang Center, 2000). Small citiesyouth gangs are now present in suburbs,rors Sanders’ (1994) findings. Other stud-had the largest proportion of gangs withsmall towns, and rural areas (Miller, W.B.,ies have questioned the extent of youthmixed race/ethnicity. The Midwest had a2001). In 1999, law enforcement agenciesgang organization in emerging gang citieslarger proportion of mixed gangs than anyreported active youth gangs in 100 per-such as Denver, CO (Esbensen, Huizinga,other region.cent of the Nation’s largest cities (thoseand Weiher, 1993); Cleveland and Colum-with populations of 250,000 or more), 47bus, OH (Huff, 1996, 1998); Kansas City,Recent student surveys and field studiespercent of suburban counties, 27 percentMO (Fleisher, 1998); Milwaukee, WI (Hage-of local gangs also report significant gen-of small cities (those with populationsdorn, 1988); Pittsburgh, PA (Klein, 1995);der mixtures (Esbensen, Deschenes, andbelow 25,000), and 18 percent of ruralSan Francisco, CA (Waldorf, 1993); Seattle,2WA (Fleisher, 1995); and St. Louis, MOa sense of “legitimacy” to new groups, butcrimes than gang members in early-onset(Decker and Van Winkle, 1996; Decker andthe context of the new localities may pro-localities. For example, about 8 in 10 gangCurry, 2000).duce adaptations that lead to divergencemembers in localities with the earliest on-from the traditional patterns. Data fromset of gang problems (before 1986) wereModern youth gangs are generally less ter-the 1996 National Youth Gang Survey showsaid to use firearms in assault crimesritory based than gangs of the past (Klein,that nearly 9 in 10 (87 percent) of the lo-“often” or “sometimes,” compared with1995; Miller, 1992; National Youth Gangcalities reporting gang problems said thatfewer than 3 in 10 gang members in locali-Center, 2000). In the older gang cities andonset occurred during the 1986–96 periodties with the latest onset (1995–96).the Southwest, gangs traditionally were(National Youth Gang Center, 1999). Antied strongly to their neighborhoods oranalysis of National Youth Gang CenterA comparison of drug trafficking patternsbarrios. The Mexican-American “turf gang”(NYGC) survey data on early onset (be-in areas with early and late onset of gangpattern, transmitted across generationsfore 1990) versus late onset (during theproblems found that both gang memberand ethnicities, has given way to autono-1990s) localities (Howell, Egley, and Glea-involvement in drug sales and gang con-mous gangs as the predominant patternson, forthcoming) found that gangs in thetrol of drug distribution were much less(Klein, 1995:102). These autonomous gangsnewer gang-problem localities were dis-likely to be significant problems in juris-consist of single, named groups occupyingtinctly different in their demographicdictions where gang problems emergedsmaller territories and may be based in acharacteristics from traditional gangs inin the past decade (Howell and Gleason,neighborhood, a public housing project,jurisdictions where gang problems began1999). In the newer gang problem locali-or another community location (such as much earlier. Gangs in late-onset localitiesties, gang control of drug distribution wasa schoolyard or shopping mall).had younger members, slightly more fe-less likely to be extensive than was gangSome gang research in the 1960s suggest-males, more Caucasians, and more of amember involvement in drug sales.ed that youngsters were pressured to joinracial/ethnic mixture. Caucasians were theGang member involvement in drug salesgangs by peers who used strong-arm tac-predominant racial/ethnic group in thewas less extensive in the oldest gang juris-tics (Yablonsky, 1967). Community (adult)latest onset (1995–96) localities. Gangs indictions (onset of gang problems beforerepresentatives view peer pressure to joinlocalities where gang problems began in1980) than in jurisdictions where onsetgangs as irresistible (Decker and Kempf-the 1990s also tended to have a much larg-occurred between 1981 and 1990 (HowellLeonard, 1991). However, it is not as diffi-er proportion of middle-class teens.and Gleason, 1999). Gang member involve-cult for adolescents to resist gang pres-Gang members in late-onset localities alsoment in drug sales was most extensive insures as is commonly believed. In mostwere far less likely to be involved in vio-jurisdictions with onset between 1981 andinstances, adolescents can refuse to joinlent crimes (homicide, aggravated assault,1985 and then decreased consistently ingangs without reprisal (Decker and Kempf-robbery, and use of firearms) and propertysubsequent onset periods throughLeonard, 1991; Fleisher, 1995; Huff, 1998;Maxson, Whitlock, and Klein, 1998).Perpetuating the myth of lifetime member-Practitioner’s View: The Challenges of Hybrid Gangsship helps sustain a gang, because thegroup’s viability depends on the ability ofLaw enforcement officers from communities unaffected by gangs until the 1980s oractive members to maintain the percep-early 1990s often find themselves scrambling to obtain training relevant to hybridtion that leaving the gang is nearly impos-gangs. When gang-related training first became widely available in the early 1990s,sible (Decker and Lauritsen, 1996:114).it often emphasized historical information, such as the formation of the Los Ange-The reality is that members (especiallyles Crips and Bloods in the late 1960s or the legacy of Chicago-based gangs (themarginal members) typically can leave aBlack Gangster Disciples, Latin Kings, and Vice Lords). As law enforcement offi-gang without serious consequences (Deck-cers learned about the origins of these influential gangs, they sometimes attempt-er and Lauritsen, 1996; Decker and Vaned to apply this outdated information in their efforts to deal with hybrid gangs inWinkle, 1996; Fleisher, 1995). In fact, mosttheir jurisdictions. The assumption that new gangs share the characteristics ofolder gangs can impede law enforcement’s attempts to identify and effectivelyadolescents do not remain in gangs forcounter local street gangs, and actions based on this assumption often elicit inap-long periods of time—particularly in areaspropriate responses from the community as a whole. Citizens may react negativelywith emerging gang problems. Studies into law enforcement efforts when they sense that gang suppression actions arethree cities that developed gang problemsgeared to a more serious gang problem than local gangs appear to present.fairly recently—Denver, CO; Rochester, NY;and Seattle, WA—show that from 54 to 69Because of uncertainty in reporting on problem groups such as “cliques,” “crews,”percent of adolescents who joined gangs“posses,” and other nontraditional collectives that may be hybrid gangs, some po-in the three cities stayed in them for 1lice department staff spend an inordinate amount of time trying to precisely cate-year or less and 9 to 21 percent belongedgorize local groups according to definitions of traditional gangs. When training lawfor 3 years or more (Thornberry, 1998).enforcement groups on investigative issues surrounding drug trafficking or streetgangs, instructors must resist the tendency to connect gangs in different cities justbecause the gangs share a common name. If the groups engage in ongoing crimi-Onset of Local Gang nal activity and alarm community members, law enforcement officers should focusProblemson the criminal activity, regardless of the ideological beliefs or identifiers (i.e., name,It appears that the emergence of gangs insymbols, and group colors) of the suspects. This practical approach would circum-new localities2 in the 10-year period 1986–vent the frustration that results from trying to pigeonhole hybrid gangs into narrow96 has contributed to the growth of hybridcategories and would avoid giving undue attention to gangs that want to be recog-gangs. For example, the use of names andnized as nationwide crime syndicates.symbols of traditional gangs may provide31995–96. Thus, gang members in thenewest gang problem jurisdictions werePractitioner’s View: Gang Migration and Hybridmuch less likely to be involved in drugGangs in Kansas Citysales than gang members in jurisdictionswhere gang problems began during theGangs began moving into the Midwest in the early 1980s, with Kansas City, MO,early to mid-1980s.emerging as a textbook example of a locality experiencing gang migration. Locat-ed in almost the geographical center of the continental United States, Kansas Cityhas approximately 5,000 documented gang members and affiliates and numerousGang StereotypesChicago- and California-style gangs in the metropolitan area.1 No single group hasThe characteristics of modern gangs con-achieved dominance.trast sharply with the stereotypical imageThe Kansas City Police Department’s Drug Enforcement Unit first encounteredof gangs that emerged in the 1980s andgang migration while investigating a new wave of drug entrepreneurs in the 1980s.continues to predominate. From the 1920sBy 1988, these trafficking suspects included confirmed members of the Crips andthrough the 1970s, gang members wereBloods sets (subgroups) from the Los Angeles, CA, area. As the presence of thecharacterized mainly as young (11–22Crips and Bloods became increasingly pronounced in Kansas City, other law en-years old) Hispanic or African Americanforcement agencies in the Midwest began sharing similar gang intelligence infor-males who lived in lower class ghetto ormation. Suddenly, Los Angeles Crips and Bloods were known to be dealing cocainebarrio sections of the inner city (Klein,in most major midwestern cities, including Des Moines, IA; Minneapolis, MN;1995; Miller, 1992; Spergel, 1995). In thatOklahoma City, OK; Omaha, NE; and Wichita, KS. By 1990, the arrival of Chicago-period, gangs usually were viewed as ra-based gang members in Kansas City was also confirmed through routine investi-cially and ethnically homogeneous, spon-gations of drug trafficking and homicides.taneously organized, and authoritativelycontrolled fighting groups (Miller, 1992).Although Kansas City has experienced gang migration, the area’s larger gangscontinue to be locally based hybrids that may not have any affiliations with migrantClassic “rumbles” historically were thegang members. These groups exemplify the evolving modern gangs that are nowmajor form of gang fighting, but they gaveincreasingly common throughout the United States, particularly in suburban areas,way in the 1970s to forays by small armedsmall cities, and rural communities. In the past decade or more, Kansas City’s and motorized bands. Most gang violencehybrid gang members have adopted traditional gang culture, modified it with person-was motivated by honor or local turf de-al interpretations and agendas, and become much more of a criminal and societalfense and, to a lesser extent, control overproblem to the community than any of the groups that have migrated into the area.facilities and areas and economic gain(Miller, 1992:118). Gang violence was not aFor example, in two sections of Kansas City, two different gangs operate as themajor social concern (Klein, 1969).Athens Park Boys (APB). These groups share the name with the original AthensPark Boys, a well-established Bloods set originating in Los Angeles County. Al-In the mid- to late 1980s, this predominantthough both of the Kansas City APB gangs engage in criminal activities and anti-gang stereotype was modified significantlysocial behavior, they have no connection other than the shared name: one set isby a California study in which researcherscomposed of African American teens on the east side of the city, and the othercontended that the two major Los Angelesconsists of Caucasian teens, primarily from affluent families in the suburbs. Eachgangs, the Crips and Bloods, had becomegroup seems to be unaware of its Kansas City counterpart, and neither set is con-highly organized and entrepreneurial andnected to APB in California or any other jurisdiction. Because of their increasingwere expanding their drug markets tomembership and unique characteristics and culture, hybrid gangs (like Kansasother cities (Skolnick et al., 1988). WhereCity’s APBs) warrant further examination.these drug operations appeared, presum-ably, so did violent crime.1 According to 2000 U.S. Census projections, the total population of Kansas City, MO, is 443,277 and thepopulation of the Kansas City metropolitan area is approximately 1.2 million.Gang MigrationThe expanded presence of gangs is oftenblamed on the relocation of members frommembers had migrated from another juris-the relocation of young people from one city to another, which is called gangdiction to the one in which they were re-central cities (Egley, 2000). Thus, the dis-migration. Some gangs are very transientsiding (Egley, 2000). Although gang migra-persion of the urban population to lessand conduct their activities on a nationaltion is stereotypically attributed to illegalpopulated areas contributed to the prolif-basis. However, the sudden appearance ofactivities such as drug franchising, expan-eration of gangs in suburban areas, smallRollin’ 60s Crips graffiti in a public park insion of criminal enterprises is not the prin-towns, and rural areas. rural Iowa, for example, does not neces-cipal driving force behind migration (Max-sarily mean that the Los Angeles gang hasLaw enforcement professionals may not beson, 1998). The most common reasons forset up a chapter in the community. Gangable to differentiate among local gangs thatmigration are social considerations affect-names are frequently copied, adopted, orhave adopted names of the same well-ing individual gang members, includingpassed on. In most instances, there is lit-known gangs from other locales but havefamily relocation to improve the quality oftle or no real connection between localno real connection with each other untillife or to be near relatives and friends.groups with the same name other thanthey begin to interact with gang membersMoreover, in the 1999 National Youth Gangthe name itself (Valdez, 2000:344).through interviews, debriefings, and otherSurvey, the vast majority (83 percent) ofcontacts. “Hybrid” versions will begin toGang migration does occur, however. Ac-law enforcement respondents agreed thatdisplay variations of the original gang, suchcording to the 1999 National Youth Gangthe appearance of gang members outsideas giving different reasons for opposingSurvey, 18 percent of all youth gangof large cities in the 1990s was caused by4rival gangs or displaying certain colors.x Gang members may change their affil-themselves with a local gang that hasInvestigators who take the time to cross-iation from one gang to another.no ties to their original gang.check their local gang intelligence with thatx It is not uncommon for a gang memberx Members of rival gangs from Chicagoof other agencies concerning gangs withto claim multiple affiliations, sometimesor Los Angeles frequently cooperate inidentical names are likely to find some sub-involving rival gangs. For example, incriminal activity in other parts of thetle and some glaring differences.Kansas City, MO, police may encountercountry.an admitted Blood gang member whoYouth often “cut and paste” bits of Holly-Emerging Informationis also known in the St. Louis, MO, areawood’s media images and big-city gangas a member of the Black Gangster on Hybrid Gangslore into new local versions of nationallyDisciples gang.known gangs with which they may claimHybrid gangs are more frequently encoun-x Existing gangs may change their namesaffiliation. Other hybrids are homegrowntered in communities in which gang prob-or suddenly merge with other gangs toand consider themselves to be distinctlems emerged during the 1990s than inform new ones.entities with no alliance to groups suchlocalities that reported onset of gangas the Bloods/Crips or Folks/People. Be-problems in the 1980s. According to lawx Although many gangs continue to because these independent gangs can beenforcement respondents in the 1998 Na-based on race/ethnicity, many of themthe most difficult to classify, they fre-tional Youth Gang Survey, gangs with aare increasingly diverse in both race/quently pose the biggest problems forsignificant mixture of two or more racial/ethnicity and gender. Seemingly strangelocal law enforcement.ethnic groups represent a larger propor-associations may form, such as betweention of all reported gangs in localities thatSkinheads, whose members frequentlyMigrating gang members appear to havesaid their gang problem began in the 1990sespouse racist rhetoric, and Crips,contributed to the growth of hybrid youth(Howell, Moore, and Egley, forthcoming). whose members are predominantlygangs in newer gang problem localities inA more specific question was asked aboutAfrican American.the 1990s. Migrant gang members may acthybrid gangs in the 1999 survey. The sur-x Gang members who relocate from as cultural carriers of the folkways, myth-vey questionnaire noted: “Some contendCalifornia to the Midwest may alignologies, and other trappings of more so-that there are youth gangs ‘that don’t fitphisticated urban gangs (Maxson, 1998:3).the mold’ of any particular gang category.These gangs may have several of the fol-lowing characteristics: a mixture of racial/ethnic groups, male and female members,Practitioner’s View: Gang Trends in the Midwestdisplay symbols and graffiti of differentHybrid gangs are particularly prevalent in the Midwest region of the United States.gangs, or have members who sometimesThree features of the Midwest hybrid gangs are troublesome for law enforcementswitch from one gang to another.” Re-officers: new alignments the hybrid gangs may make, Hispanic gang patterns, andspondents were asked if they had gangsAsian gang criminal activity.that fit this description. Six in ten respon-dents (61 percent) said they had suchNew alignments. Los Angeles gang members relocating to the Midwest may alignthemselves with a local gang that has no real ties to the California member’s origi-gangs. However, the average number ofnal gang set. In certain cases, gang members relocating from Chicago or Los An-such gangs in a given locality—four—geles conduct criminal activity in cooperation with their former rivals. For example,is small (Howell, Moore, and Egley,a recent Kansas City investigation identified multiple defendants in a drug traffick-forthcoming).ing operation. Checking the suspects’ backgrounds through Los Angeles law en-Hybrid gangs tend to have the followingforcement files, investigators discovered that some of the defendants were affiliatednontraditional features:with the 135 Compton Pirus Bloods, and others were affiliated with the rival LosAngeles gang, the 5 Deuce Hoover Crips. This coalition surprised investigators inx They may or may not have an allegianceLos Angeles, but cooperation often occurs when drug alliances form in “neutral”to a traditional gang color. In fact, muchparts of the country, such as the Midwest. Frequently, profit potential outweighsof the hybrid gang graffiti in the Unitedtraditional gang loyalties.States is a composite of multiple gangsHispanic gang patterns. Factions of Hispanic gangs are becoming increasinglywith conflicting symbols. For example,prominent in much of the United States, including the Midwest. It is crucial for lawCrip gang graffiti painted in red (theenforcement to know the origins and rivalries of Hispanic gangs, including the Sur-color used by the rival Blood gang)enos, Nortenos, and Sinaloan Cowboys, because officers increasingly encounterwould be unheard of in California butthese and other factions. Transient Hispanic gangs may continue their animosityhave occurred elsewhere in the hybridwith rivals in other parts of the country and engage in violent encounters with localgang culture. Hispanic gangs. This phenomenon is more common with Hispanic gangs than withx Local gangs may adopt the symbols ofother types of gangs. Hispanic gang members tend to be more loyal and tradition-large gangs in more than one city. Foral in supporting their gang, even when in transit or when relocating to other partsexample, a locally based gang namedof the country.after the Los Angeles Bloods may alsoAsian gang criminal activity. In the Midwest, Asian gang criminal activity, muchuse symbols from the Chicago Peopleof which is perpetrated by transient gangs, continues to have a great impact. Prob-Nation, such as five-pointed stars andlems for law enforcement include cultural misunderstandings, identification issues,downward-pointed pitchforks.language barriers, and the transient nature of these gangs (who travel out ofState to commit crimes).5Movies and “gangsta” lyrics also have con-of gangs and gang culture can confuse con-x Provision of opportunities.tributed to the proliferation of bits andcerned agencies, including those in thex Suppression/social control.pieces of gang culture. Law enforcementjuvenile and criminal justice systems, asagencies began to notice hybrid gangsthey struggle to separate gangs into neatx Organizational change andafter one such gang was depicted in thecategories that often do not exist. It is vi-development.movie Colors (Valdez, 2000:13). Gang mi-tally important for law enforcement to con-The model is multifaceted and multi-gration, movies, and gangsta music workcentrate on gang-related criminal activitylayered, involving the individual youth,together to introduce local gangs to large-rather than on more ephemeral aspects ofthe family, the gang structure, local agen-city gang culture. The lack of an existinggang affiliation or demographics.cies, and the community. NYGC (2001b)gang culture allows for modification andhas prepared a planning guide to assistWhen addressing local gang problems,adaptation of the culture of urban gangs.communities in developing a plan to im-communities need to understand ongoingplement OJJDP’s Comprehensive GangA field study of the Fremont Hustlers inchanges in the Nation’s gang dynamics,Model.Kansas City, MO, illustrates a unique formprovide and participate in updated gang-of hybrid gang (Fleisher, 1998). The gangrelated training, and monitor the specifichad no written set of rules, no member-gangs and associated cultures within theirConclusionship requirements, and no leader or hier-own jurisdictions. Unfortunately, one thingarchy that might pull all 72 members intohas not changed with the advent of theAlthough hybrid gangs are not new to thea coherent organization. By hanging outhybrid gang. There is no universal formulaUnited States, they clearly have flourishedand establishing ties with Fremont Hus-for a patently successful response, andin the past decade. This Bulletin stressestlers, an outsider is slowly assimilatedwhat works in one city may have little im-the “culture” of modern hybrid gangs. Thisinto the gang’s social life (Fleisher, 1998:pact in another. An effective strategy mustconcept means that they are character-39). Fremont gang youth did not use thebe based on an accurate assessment ofized by more than simply a mixture of age,term “member”; their closest expressionthe local problem, updated informationgender, and racial/ethnic membership—was “down with Fremont” (Fleisher, 1998:about local gang activities, an examinationalthough the diverse membership of gangs41). Because the Fremont Hustlers was notof resources in the community, and a real-in newer gang problem localities certainlya cohesive organization and youth did notistic appraisal of how to gauge the impactcontributes to a wide diversity of gangtalk about the group’s structure or opera-of the response. As many agencies as pos-forms. The hybrid gang culture sharplytion, the gang structure was difficult tosible, particularly local government anddistinguishes modern gangs from tradition-recognize at first. In the study, Fremontpolice administration, must be includedal gangs. Modern hybrid gangs do not op-gang youth said they were Folks, but theyearly in the process of developing a strat-erate by traditional gang rules. Their affili-did not know why, except that they likedegy for gang prevention and intervention.ation with gangs based in Chicago or Losto draw the pitchfork symbol used by theThe more resources and partners that areAngeles is likely to be in name only. TheyFolks (Fleisher, 1998:26). Fleisher describedinvolved, especially those with authoritytend to “cut and paste” gang culture fromthis gang as “a haphazardly assembledto respond directly to gangs, the greatertraditional gangs, and they may displaysocial unit composed of deviant adoles-a community’s chances for success.symbols traditionally associated with sev-cents who shared social and economiceral gangs. They may form alliances withAll jurisdictions experiencing gang prob-needs and the propensity for resolvingrival gangs to carry out criminal activity,lems need to assess their problems care-those needs in a similar way” (1998:264).but their independent mode of operatingfully in light of the gang characteristics re-makes them difficult for law enforcementviewed in this Bulletin. NYGC (2001a) hasto classify. Thus, it is very important forPolicy and Programdeveloped a protocol that communitieslaw enforcement agencies to recognize theImplicationscan use to guide the assessment of theirdiverse gang culture of hybrid gangs, togang problem. This assessment protocol isapproach them without any preconceivedTo devise an appropriate response to hy-applicable in communities of all sizes andnotions, and to concentrate on their gang-brid gangs, law enforcement and othercharacteristics.related criminal activity rather than oncommunity agencies must understandtheir presumed affiliations with traditionalthat hybrids do not operate by traditionalThe U.S. Department of Justice’s Office ofgangs. Every community—regardless ofrules but they often follow general patternsJuvenile Justice and Delinquency Preven-the presence or absence of hybrid gangs—that distinguish them as a new type oftion (OJJDP) has invested considerableshould conduct a thorough assessment ofgang. That is, they often have members ofresources in the development and testingits unique gang problem before devisingdifferent racial/ethnic groups, membersof a Comprehensive Community-Wide Ap-strategies for combating it.may claim multiple gangs, codes of con-proach to Gang Prevention, Intervention,duct may be unclear, graffiti may contain aand Suppression (Spergel et al., 1994). Thismixture of symbols, and they may be in-model, based on a national assessment ofEndnotesvolved in criminal activity alongside otheryouth gang policies and programs (Spergel1. In the remainder of this Bulletin, unless other-gangs. In other instances, exemplified byand Curry, 1990), is a general frameworkwise noted, the term “gang” refers to youththe many cities that have factions of Blackthat addresses the youth gang problemgangs.Gangster Disciples or Rollin’ 60s Crips,through the following five interrelated2. The term “locality” refers to the major typesthere may be differing levels of true con-strategies:of named place units found in the United Statesnection to the original gang, or the tie mayx Community mobilization.(Miller, W.B., 2001:15). It includes cities, subur-be primarily related to criminal activitiesban areas, and counties in the National Youthsuch as drug trafficking. This melting potx Social intervention, including preven-Gang Survey.tion and street outreach.6ReferencesHowell, J.C., and Gleason, D.K. 1999. Youth GangMiller, W.B. 2001. The Growth of Youth Gang Prob-Drug Trafficking. Youth Gang Series Bulletin.lems in the United States: 1970–98. Report. Wash-Best, J., and Hutchinson, M.M. 1996. The gangWashington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofinitiation rite as a motif in contemporary crimeOffice of Justice Programs, Office of JuvenileJustice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice anddiscourse. Justice Quarterly 13:383–404.Justice and Delinquency Prevention.Delinquency Prevention.Curry, G.D. 2000. Race, ethnicity, and genderHowell, J.C., and Lynch, J.P. 2000. Youth GangsNational Youth Gang Center. 1999. 1996 Nationalissues in gangs: Reconciling police data. In in Schools. Youth Gang Series Bulletin. Washing-Youth Gang Survey. Summary. Washington, DC:Problem Oriented Policing, vol. 2. Washington,ton, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofU.S. Department of Justice, Office of JusticeDC: Police Executive Research Forum.Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile JusticePrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-Decker, S.H., Bynum, T.S., and Weisel, D.L. 1998.and Delinquency Prevention.quency Prevention.A tale of two cities: Gangs as organized crimeHowell, J.C., Moore, J.P., and Egley, A., Jr. Forth-National Youth Gang Center. 2000. 1998 Nationalgroups. Justice Quarterly 15:395–423.coming. The changing boundaries of youthYouth Gang Survey. Summary. Washington, DC:Decker, S.H., and Curry, G.D. 2000. Addressinggangs. In Gangs in America, 3d ed., edited byU.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-key features of gang membership: MeasuringC.R. Huff. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sagegrams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquen-the involvement of young gang members. Jour-Publications, Inc.cy Prevention.nal of Criminal Justice 28:473–482.Huff, C.R. 1996. The criminal behavior of gangNational Youth Gang Center. 2001a. AssessingDecker, S.H., and Kempf-Leonard, K. 1991. Con-members and non-gang at-risk youth. In Gangsyour community’s youth gang problem. Unpub-structing gangs: The social definition of youthin America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff. Thou-lished report. Tallahassee, FL: National Youthactivities. Criminal Justice Policy Reviewsand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., pp.Gang Center. Copies are available from NYGC.5:271–291.75–102.National Youth Gang Center. 2001b. Planning forDecker, S.H., and Lauritsen, J.L. 1996. BreakingHuff, C.R. 1998. Comparing the Criminal Behav-implementation of the OJJDP Comprehensivethe bonds of membership: Leaving the gang. Inior of Youth Gangs and At-Risk Youth. ResearchGang Model. Unpublished report. Tallahassee,Gangs in America, 2d ed., edited by C.R. Huff.in Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofFL: National Youth Gang Center. Copies areThousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.,Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Nationalavailable from NYGC.pp. 103–122.Institute of Justice.Sanders, W. 1994. Gangbangs and Drive-Bys:Decker, S.H., and Van Winkle, B. 1996. Life in theKlein, M.W. 1969. Violence in American juvenileGrounded Culture and Juvenile Gang Violence.Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence. New York,gangs. In Crimes of Violence, vol. 13, edited byNew York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.NY: Cambridge University Press.D.J. Mulvihill and M.M. Tumin. Washington, DC:National Commission on the Causes and Pre-Egley, A., Jr. 2000. Highlights of the 1999 Nationalvention of Violence, pp. 1427–1460.National Youth GangYouth Gang Survey. Fact Sheet. Washington, DC:CenterU.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Pro-Klein, M.W. 1995. The American Street Gang. Newgrams, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquen-York, NY: Oxford University Press.As part of its comprehensive, coordi-cy Prevention.Maxson, C.L. 1998. Gang Members on the Move.nated response to America’s gangEsbensen, F., Deschenes, E.P., and Winfree, L.T.Youth Gang Series Bulletin. Washington, DC:problem, the Office of Juvenile Jus-1999. Differences between gang girls and gangU.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justicetice and Delinquency Preventionboys: Results from a multi-site survey. YouthPrograms, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-(OJJDP) funds the National Youthand Society 31(1):27–53.quency Prevention.Gang Center (NYGC). NYGC assistsState and local jurisdictions in theEsbensen, F., Huizinga, D., and Weiher, A.W.Maxson, C.L., Whitlock, M.L., and Klein, M.W.collection, analysis, and exchange1993. Gang and non-gang youth: Differences in1998. Vulnerability to street gang membership:of information on gang-related demo-explanatory variables. Journal of ContemporaryImplications for practice. Social Service Reviewgraphics, legislation, literature,Criminal Justice 9(1):94–116.72(1):70–91.research, and promising programFernandez, M.E. 1998. An urban myth sees theMcCorkle, R.C., and Miethe, T.D. 1998. The polit-strategies. NYGC coordinates activi-light again. Washington Post (November 15):B2.ical and organizational response to gangs: Anties of the OJJDP Gang Consortium,examination of “moral panic” in Nevada. Justicea group of Federal agencies, gangFleisher, M.S. 1995. Beggars and Thieves: LivesQuarterly 15(1):41–64.program representatives, and serv-of Urban Street Criminals. Madison, WI: Univer-ice providers that works to coordi-sity of Wisconsin Press.Miethe, T.D., and McCorkle, R.C. 1997. Evaluat-ing Nevada’s anti-gang legislation and gangnate gang information and programs.Fleisher, M.S. 1998. Dead End Kids: Gang Girlsprosecution units. Unpublished report. Wash-NYGC also provides training andand the Boys They Know. Madison, WI: Univer-ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office oftechnical assistance for OJJDP’ssity of Wisconsin Press.Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.Rural Gang, Gang-Free Schools,and Gang-Free Communities Initia-Hagedorn, J.M. 1988. People and Folks: Gangs,Miller, J.A. 2001. One of the Guys: Girls, Gangs,tives. For more information, contact:Crime and the Underclass in a Rustbelt City.and Gender. New York, NY: Oxford UniversityChicago, IL: Lakeview Press.Press.National Youth Gang CenterP.O. Box 12729Hasenauer, H. 1996 (October). Gang awareness.Miller, W.B. 1992 (Revised from 1982). Crime Soldiers Online. www.dtic.mil/soldiers.by Youth Gangs and Groups in the United States.Tallahassee, FL 32317Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,850–385–0600Howell, J.C., Egley, A., Jr., and Gleason, D.K.Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile850–386–5356 (fax)Forthcoming. Modern Day Youth Gangs. YouthJustice and Delinquency Prevention.[email protected]Gang Series Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. De-www.iir.com/nygcpartment of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,Office of Juvenile Justice and DelinquencyPrevention.7U.S. Department of JusticePRESORTED STANDARDOffice of Justice ProgramsPOSTAGE & FEES PAIDOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency PreventionDOJ/OJJDPPERMIT NO. G–91Washington, DC 20531Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300BulletinNCJ 189916Skolnick, J.H., Correl, T., Navarro, E., and Rabb,Spergel, I.A., and Curry, G.D. 1990. StrategiesThrasher, F.M. 1927. The Gang—A Study of 1,313R. 1988. The Social Structure of Street Drug Deal-and perceived agency effectiveness in dealingGangs in Chicago. Chicago, IL: University ofing. Report to the Office of the Attorney Gener-with the youth gang problem. In Gangs in Amer-Chicago Press.al of the State of California. Berkeley, CA: Uni-ica, edited by C.R. Huff. Newbury Park, CA: Sageversity of California, Berkeley.Publications, Inc., pp. 288–309.Valdez, A. 2000. Gangs: A Guide to UnderstandingStreet Gangs, 3d ed. San Clemente, CA: LawTechSpergel, I.A. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem. NewThornberry, T.P. 1998. Membership in youthPublishing.York, NY: Oxford University Press.gangs and involvement in serious and violentoffending. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Of-Waldorf, D. 1993. When the Crips invaded SanSpergel, I.A., Chance, R., Ehrensaft, C., Regulus,fenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interven-Francisco: Gang migration. Journal of Gang Re-T., Kane, C., Laseter, R., Alexander, A., and Oh,tions, edited by R. Loeber and D.P. Farrington.search 1:11–16.S. 1994. Gang Suppression and Intervention:Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.,Community Models. Research Summary. Wash-Yablonsky, L. 1967. The Violent Gang, revisedpp. 147–166.ington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office ofed. New York, NY: Penguin.Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention.This Bulletin was prepared under CooperativeAgreement 95–JD–MU–K001 with the Institutefor Intergovernmental Research from the OfficeAcknowledgmentsof Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.David Starbuck was formerly a Sergeant with the Kansas City Police Department,Points of view or opinions expressed in thiswhere he supervised the Gang Unit. He is vice president of the Missouri Chapterdocument are those of the authors and do notof the Midwest Gang Investigators Association and an adjunct consultant withnecessarily represent the official position orNYGC. Mr. Starbuck provided the photograph on page 2.policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice.James C. Howell, Ph.D., is an adjunct researcher with NYGC.Donna J. Lindquist is a senior research associate with the Institute for Intergovern-The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-mental Research.quency Prevention is a component of the Of-The authors are grateful to John Moore, Director of NYGC, and NYGC staff forfice of Justice Programs, which also includes valuable reviews and comments on earlier versions of this Bulletin. Phelan Wyrick,the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau Program Manager at OJJDP, also made important contributions.of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Publication Overview

The proliferation of youth gangs since 1980 has fueled the public's fear and magnified.. read more

Embed HTML

Set your desired dimension then copy the code below to your blog/website.

Width:

Height:

Code:

Gangs, Juvenile delinquency prevention

The proliferation of youth gangs since 1980 has fueled the public's fear and magnified possible misconceptions about youth gangs. To address the mounting concern about youth gangs, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's (OJJDP's) Youth Gang Series delves into many of the key issues related to youth gangs. The series considers issues such as gang migration, gang growth, female involvement with gangs, homicide, drugs and violence, and the needs of communities and youth who live in the presence of youth gangs.

Download Gangs, Juvenile delinquency prevention

To continue, complete human verification below.

We need to make sure that you are not a malicious bot or virus.Complete the puzzle to download the document. If you got confused by the question, click reload button to change the puzzle.